CIA admits waterboarding inmates

[[R_H]]

BBC

The CIA has for the first time publicly admitted using the controversial method of "waterboarding" on terror suspects.

CIA director Michael Hayden told Congress however that it had only been used on three people, and not at all for the past five years.

He said the technique had been used on high-profile al-Qaeda detainees including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Mr Hayden was speaking as National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell presented his annual threat assessment.

Waterboarding is an interrogation technique in which the detainee is put in fear of drowning. Some critics describe it as torture and Congress has been debating banning its use by the CIA.

President Bush has threatened to veto such a bill.

Mr Hayden said the CIA had also used waterboarding against two other top al-Qaeda suspects, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.

Catastrophe fears

He told Congress: "We used it against these three detainees because of the circumstances at the time. "There was the belief that additional catastrophic attacks against the homeland were inevitable. And we had limited knowledge about al-Qaeda and its workings.

"Those two realities have changed."

In his report, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell focussed attention on al-Qaeda and its leadership based in the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"Al-Qaeda remains the pre-eminent threat against the United States, both here at home and abroad," he said.

[MKSheppard]

Link

"Waterboarding has been used on only three detainees," Hayden told the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was the first time a U.S. official publicly specified the number of people subjected to waterboarding and named them.

Congress is considering banning the simulated drowning technique. A Democratic senator and a human rights advocacy group urged a criminal investigation after Hayden made his remarks.

"Waterboarding is torture, and torture is a crime," Human Rights Watch said in a statement.

Those subjected to waterboarding were suspected Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and senior al Qaeda leaders Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Hayden said at the Senate hearing on threats to the United States.

He said waterboarding has not been used in five years

So; lets see, only three "people" have been waterboarded ever, and they were KSM, and two top senior Al Quaeda figures?

*tries to cry, but finds out he cant*

[MKSheppard]

Abd Al-Rahim al-Nashiri was head of al Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf region and was behind the attack on the USS Cole.

Payback is a bitch

[CmdrWilkens]

Yes because attacking military targets containing no civilians should always result in simulated drowning and torture instead of a trial in a military court followed by imprisonment or execution for either murder or combat not in a uniform. Ceriianly things like basic human decency should never be applied to people who dare attack the US.

[Elfdart]

The purpose of torture isn't about getting information, it's about giving sadists a sexual thrill. As Sheepfucker has just demonstrated.

Now it's just a matter of finding out which CIA employees tortured prisoners and handing their names over to Interpol. The MCA might have given them amnesty, but civilized countries still treat torture as a crime.

[brianeyci]

What I can't get my hand around is how cold war dogs who see in shades of gray wouldn't see this coming. Governments come and go, and the next one might not like torture. CIA operatives should or would have known this would bite them in the ass, and I feel no sympathy for them.

Or has the CIA been infested with the "we make reality" people rather than the realpolitik guys, even at the operative level?

[Dark Hellion]

You know, as long as we are torturing people, we might as well go with good old school vivisection. At least then we can do medical research at the same time. Kill two (or three if you count the prisoner) birds with one stone. I mean, we might as well get the most out of human rights violations.

[MKSheppard]

Yes because attacking military targets containing no civilians

I'm sure that 300+ Africans agree with you. Oh wait, they can't, because they're dead; blown up in an Al Quaeda attack two years before the Cole on our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya; not to mention an Australian tourist and a Yemeni hotel worker who died in Al Quaeda's first attack in 1992 against US Soldiers which completely misfired.

should always result in simulated drowning and torture instead of a trial in a military court followed by imprisonment or execution for either murder or combat not in a uniform. Ceriianly things like basic human decency should never be applied to people who dare attack the US.

Actually, the US has only signed and ratified Third Geneva; not the later bullshit protocols created in the seventies. Which means that if you don't wear a uniform, and/or don't respect the laws and customs of war e.g. no mass deliberate killing of non combatants; we are legally justified to shoot you in the head summarily after a quick decision in the field.

If you don't want to be shot in the head; limit your attacks to US troops, instead of doing Al Quaeda's "kill everyone" tactic of mega casualty attacks which not only kill US troops, but everyone within the immediate vinicity.

[MKSheppard]

By the way, if you're in Al Quaeda, it doesn't matter if you personally have not carried out mass casualty attacks, or sawed the heads off of civilians; you are just as culpapable in those attacks, and subject to summary execution.

Same principle the allies applied to the SS post-war in the Nuremberg Trials, criminalizing the entire organization.

[Morilore]

I'm sure that 300+ Africans agree with you. Oh wait, they can't, because they're dead; blown up in an Al Quaeda attack two years before the Cole on our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya; not to mention an Australian tourist and a Yemeni hotel worker who died in Al Quaeda's first attack in 1992 against US Soldiers which completely misfired.

Too bad you didn't mention that in your "payback's a bitch" masturbation post.

Actually, the US has only signed and ratified Third Geneva; not the later bullshit protocols created in the seventies. Which means that if you don't wear a uniform, and/or don't respect the laws and customs of war e.g. no mass deliberate killing of non combatants; we are legally justified to shoot you in the head summarily after a quick decision in the field.

If you don't want to be shot in the head; limit your attacks to US troops, instead of doing Al Quaeda's "kill everyone" tactic of mega casualty attacks which not only kill US troops, but everyone within the immediate vinicity.

???

Waterboarding =/= shot in the head. No one would really care if they had just been shot in the head. Why do you always argue by changing the subject? Is there a name for this mental disorder?

By the way, if you're in Al Quaeda, it doesn't matter if you personally have not carried out mass casualty attacks, or sawed the heads off of civilians; you are just as culpapable in those attacks, and subject to summary execution.

Same principle the allies applied to the SS post-war in the Nuremberg Trials, criminalizing the entire organization.

Whoop-de-shit. Shoot them all in the head for all I care. Just don't torture them, it's retarded.

[K. A. Pital]

Same principle the allies applied to the SS post-war in the Nuremberg Trials, criminalizing the entire organization.

Article 10 of the Charter of the Tribunal
[…] in cases where a group or organization is declared criminal by the Tribunal, the competent national authority of any Signatory shall have the right to bring individual to trial for membership therein before national, military or occupation courts […] In any case the criminal nature of the group or organization is considered proved […]

So you can trial an SS-man for being in the SS, but I don't see the greenlight to summary execution.

[Surlethe]

Even a cursory examination of history reveals that not only is torture is useless as an interrogation device, it also perverts information that otherwise would have been good. During the early Renaissance, for example, witches who were brought in to the Italian Inquisition very casually admitted that they were good Catholics who happened to fly around at night and protect their crops. After the torture started and word got around, witches who were brought in pre-emptively confessed to satanic rituals, eating babies, sex with demons, and all sorts of nonsense that had nothing to do with the folk magic they practiced.

It boggles the mind that the CIA is institutionally stupid enough to consider waterboarding and other physical tortures viable interrogation tactics. They've got to know that torturing not only makes the victim an unreliable source, it also dilutes and perverts information from new captives, who, unwilling to undergo torture, in order to avoid it make up stories they think their captors want to hear.

[brianeyci]

Waterboarding? Ha. Shep is right, use a gun. Henderson knows where the Centox nerve gas is, and millions will die. You start at the kneecaps and work your way around the body. And later on, when nobody's watching, you blow him away. Preferably without a naive young officer watching. Kids don't know what it takes to protect America.

[Edi]

Yes because attacking military targets containing no civilians

I'm sure that 300+ Africans agree with you. Oh wait, they can't, because they're dead; blown up in an Al Quaeda attack two years before the Cole on our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya; not to mention an Australian tourist and a Yemeni hotel worker who died in Al Quaeda's first attack in 1992 against US Soldiers which completely misfired.

should always result in simulated drowning and torture instead of a trial in a military court followed by imprisonment or execution for either murder or combat not in a uniform. Ceriianly things like basic human decency should never be applied to people who dare attack the US.

Actually, the US has only signed and ratified Third Geneva; not the later bullshit protocols created in the seventies. Which means that if you don't wear a uniform, and/or don't respect the laws and customs of war e.g. no mass deliberate killing of non combatants; we are legally justified to shoot you in the head summarily after a quick decision in the field.

If you don't want to be shot in the head; limit your attacks to US troops, instead of doing Al Quaeda's "kill everyone" tactic of mega casualty attacks which not only kill US troops, but everyone within the immediate vinicity.

You're one stupid fuck, Shep. Wilkens is responding to you justifying waterboarding for the USS Cole attack, which you brought up and because you can't answer that, you just move the goalposts. Pathetic.

[Lord of the Abyss]

So; lets see, only three "people" have been waterboarded ever, and they were KSM, and two top senior Al Quaeda figures?

And I should believe them if they say that's all, why ? And how do we know that those two others they admit to WERE members of Al Qaeda ? Of course they'd say they were under torture; they'd also confess to being members of COBRA and tell you where they were holding GI Joe's girlfriend.

[CmdrWilkens]

Yes because attacking military targets containing no civilians

I'm sure that 300+ Africans agree with you. Oh wait, they can't, because they're dead; blown up in an Al Quaeda attack two years before the Cole on our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya; not to mention an Australian tourist and a Yemeni hotel worker who died in Al Quaeda's first attack in 1992 against US Soldiers which completely misfired.

All of which in NO WAY addresses the fact that your original post ONLY mentioned the Cole incident in reference to the paticular figure noted as being subject to waterboarding.

should always result in simulated drowning and torture instead of a trial in a military court followed by imprisonment or execution for either murder or combat not in a uniform. Ceriianly things like basic human decency should never be applied to people who dare attack the US.

Actually, the US has only signed and ratified Third Geneva; not the later bullshit protocols created in the seventies. Which means that if you don't wear a uniform, and/or don't respect the laws and customs of war e.g. no mass deliberate killing of non combatants; we are legally justified to shoot you in the head summarily after a quick decision in the field.

If you don't want to be shot in the head; limit your attacks to US troops, instead of doing Al Quaeda's "kill everyone" tactic of mega casualty attacks which not only kill US troops, but everyone within the immediate vinicity.

Wow, you again fail to address the fact that my objection is to torture. Note how I SPECIFICALLY included prosivsions for execution as okay by me in cases of attacks not keeping with the rule of war:

imprisonment or execution for either murder or combat not in a uniform

So again you for some reason have latched on to the idea that summary execution under provisions spelled out by law somehow justifies torture. Utter horseshit Shep, utter horseshit.

[Molyneux]

Waterboarding? Ha. Shep is right, use a gun. Henderson knows where the Centox nerve gas is, and millions will die. You start at the kneecaps and work your way around the body. And later on, when nobody's watching, you blow him away. Preferably without a naive young officer watching. Kids don't know what it takes to protect America.

You ever heard the saying, "The cure's worse than the disease"...?